PURPOSE: To study the correlation between subjective refraction and biometry obtained by Orbscan and echography in normal eyes. To compare biometric parameters with the subjective spherical equivalent. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Subjective refraction, biometric parameters using Orbscan, and echography were recorded in 190 normal eyes (including eyes with ametropia) of 95 patients. Biometric parameters (i.e., corneal diameter, anterior chamber depth, central pachymetry, iridocorneal angle, corneal and lens radii of curvature, and axial length of the eye) were compared in different refractive groups and were correlated with the subjective refraction. RESULTS: Corneal biometric parameters did not correlate with the subjective spherical equivalent and showed no differences between the refractive groups except for the central pachymetry. In the high myopic group (<-6D), the central cornea was significantly thinner (531 micro m versus 549 micro m, p=0.016). The correlation between corneal radius and axial length was strong in emmetropic eyes (r(s)=0.63, p<0.001) and poor but significant in ametropic eyes (r(s)=0.28, p=0.002). Axial length, anterior chamber depth, and iridocorneal angle showed significant differences between the refractive groups (p<0.001) and correlated with the subjective spherical equivalent (r(s[[/INF=0.44, p<0.001). Subjective spherical equivalent showed the strongest correlation with the axial length (rs)=0.82, p<0.001). Subjective spherical equivalent, central corneal thickness, axial length, anterior chamber depth, and anterior corneal radius showed a strong correlation between both eyes (rs[[/INF=0.94, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Biometric characteristics of the eye (excluding cornea characteristics) vary with subjective spherical equivalent. Axial length presents the strongest correlation with the subjective spherical equivalent and correlates with the other ocular biometric parameters. Axial length plays a major role in the ocular biometry and refraction.
PURPOSE: To study the correlation between subjective refraction and biometry obtained by Orbscan and echography in normal eyes. To compare biometric parameters with the subjective spherical equivalent. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Subjective refraction, biometric parameters using Orbscan, and echography were recorded in 190 normal eyes (including eyes with ametropia) of 95 patients. Biometric parameters (i.e., corneal diameter, anterior chamber depth, central pachymetry, iridocorneal angle, corneal and lens radii of curvature, and axial length of the eye) were compared in different refractive groups and were correlated with the subjective refraction. RESULTS: Corneal biometric parameters did not correlate with the subjective spherical equivalent and showed no differences between the refractive groups except for the central pachymetry. In the high myopic group (<-6D), the central cornea was significantly thinner (531 micro m versus 549 micro m, p=0.016). The correlation between corneal radius and axial length was strong in emmetropic eyes (r(s)=0.63, p<0.001) and poor but significant in ametropic eyes (r(s)=0.28, p=0.002). Axial length, anterior chamber depth, and iridocorneal angle showed significant differences between the refractive groups (p<0.001) and correlated with the subjective spherical equivalent (r(s[[/INF=0.44, p<0.001). Subjective spherical equivalent showed the strongest correlation with the axial length (rs)=0.82, p<0.001). Subjective spherical equivalent, central corneal thickness, axial length, anterior chamber depth, and anterior corneal radius showed a strong correlation between both eyes (rs[[/INF=0.94, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Biometric characteristics of the eye (excluding cornea characteristics) vary with subjective spherical equivalent. Axial length presents the strongest correlation with the subjective spherical equivalent and correlates with the other ocular biometric parameters. Axial length plays a major role in the ocular biometry and refraction.
Authors: Dean P Hainsworth; Xiaoyu Gao; Ionut Bebu; Arup Das; Lisa Olmos de Koo; Andrew J Barkmeier; William Tamborlane; John M Lachin; Lloyd Paul Aiello Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Byung Soo Kang; Li-Ke Wang; Yong-Ping Zheng; Jeremy A Guggenheim; William K Stell; Chea-Su Kee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 3.240